Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Women in gaol

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Obnoxio The Clown on September 19, 2011

Please note: this post has NOTHING to do with my anarchist beliefs, and is made in the context of current societal norms.

I attended an interesting debate and discussion on Wednesday: “Women – unheard voices in the rehabilitation revolution”. I went because I’ve met Farah Damji and I’ve been impressed by her enthusiasm for reforming prison (presumably because she’s seen it up close and personal.)

So I went to the debate, chaired by Jonathan Aitken and starring a number of famous less famous experts on prison matters including Imran Khan (bête noire of the prison establishment since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry), several who worked for the criminal justice system (including the head of the Prison Governors Association and someone from the Centre for Mental Health), several of their current and former “service users”* and a vast array of charities who work around the edges of prison to make it possible for people coming out of prison to get back into society.The venue was surprisingly full, people were actually standing in the aisle.

Now, I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to hear that I’m broadly unsympathetic to criminals of all genders, but my bullshit detectors didn’t go off very much during the debate, so for the purposes of the discussion I’ll be impartial about the sort of things that caught my ear. (I must stress the lack of bullshit: I was largely impressed by people not trying to weasel their way around stuff or promote this or that agenda.)

First and foremost, although the number of women in prison is quite small (around 4500, if I remember correctly, out of a total population of just less than 90000) women are far more likely to get a custodial sentence than men. Things that would get men a community service sentence or some other fucking pathetic slap on the wrist, would almost certainly get women jail time.

Secondly, most of the women who do wind up getting jail time have children, who are then secondary victims of their mothers’ winding up in jail.

Thirdly, there are very few women’s (and young offender’s) prisons, so women who go to jail are, on average, twice as far from their families as men.

Many other factors were mentioned, including that many women are victims of domestic violence, which leads to them committing crimes.

The consensus of opinion was that prison was excellent at the task of punishing people, but absolutely dire at rehabilitating them.

There was a case made for “pre-emptive” interventions, such as removing women from abusive relationships (which filled me with horror) and alternative approaches to rehabilitation. These rehabilitation programs are often vastly more effective at reducing recidivism than prison is and they are cheaper than prison.

The consensus of opinion was that many women could be spared from going to prison at all, or if diverted to specific rehabilitation programs, they could be rehabilitated much more effectively, reducing the risk of recidivism.

It seem like prisons have very few programs available to reduce this risk, and they are run infrequently, leading to the awkward situation where a prisoner may have to stay beyond their term in order to complete the program, or sometimes even start their program!

So, taking all those points at face value (I’m not going to argue over specific points, I simply don’t know enough), it seems pretty fair to say that women who do wind up in prison get a raw deal.

Comedy moment of the evening was provided by a hapless BBC hackette, who, after hearing grumbles from the audience about governments pandering to the Daily Mail and tabloids, stood up to declare that the BBC had no agenda and was only interested in finding the truth. Even among a right-on group of outreach coordinators and third-sector nabobs, it was only the innate politeness of the audience that stopped a raucous outburst of laughter.

{48 comments }

Uncle FungusSeptember 28, 2011 at 22:59

I am disappointed how few of the 47 comments addressed the article.

“First and foremost, although the number of women in prison is quite small (around 4500, if I remember correctly, out of a total population of just less than 90000) women are far more likely to get a custodial sentence than men. Things that would get men a community service sentence or some other fucking pathetic slap on the wrist, would almost certainly get women jail time.”

Really? Can anyone recommend resources to access statistics on this?

“Secondly, most of the women who do wind up getting jail time have children, who are then secondary victims of their mothers’ winding up in jail.”

But it hardly seems fair to get out of punishment by having a child. Also is it good for a child to see their mum commit umpteen crimes with no consequences?

“Thirdly, there are very few women’s (and young offender’s) prisons, so women who go to jail are, on average, twice as far from their families as men.”

This could be solved by building more women’s jails. They must have missed that part from the petition.

how do things turn out in the USA where handcuffs and jail seem rather common?

Ancient + Tattered AirmanSeptember 19, 2011 at 23:04

Well, I signed the petition but to my surprise was only number 60 on the list so it appears that not too many of dear Anna’s devoted readership has taken Obnoxio’s plea to heart. May I please urge you to think again?

Being in an abusive relationship affects people in a number of ways. Cases of women eventually killing their abusive partners do happen, but they are fairly rare and I wouldn’t imagine they represent a particularly large portion of the female prison population. In general, if someone in an abusive relationship ends up dead, it tends to be the abusee rather than the abuser.

However, the relationship can have effects which make a person more susceptible to other forms of criminality. For one thing, it means that the relationship is not about one side giving the other help and support. A woman who already has difficulties with drug or alcohol addiction, for example, will not get much help in getting clean from an abusive partner. Often the reverse in fact; abusive relationships are often about control, and substance dependence is a factor which an abuser can manipulate in order to increase his* control.

Additionally, abusive relationships often involve the abuser systematically undermining the self-esteem of the abused in order to foster a sense of dependance. This then makes it easier for the abuser to coerce his partner into criminality, and this can manifest itself in the form of shoplifting, etc.

That being said, it’s not been my experience that women in general get a particularly raw deal from the criminal justice, as compared to men, but that’s purely anedoctal. It’s always problematic to say “Women are more likely to go to prison than men for X offence” because there are all sorts of factors which influence whether a given individual is likely to get custody for a given offence. Isolating out all those factors so you end up with a straight man / woman comparison is going to be pretty tricky. I would treat all statistical claims along those lines with a measure of caution.

It is certainly true that most women are in prison for non-violent offences. This is because women are much, much less likely to commit violent offences than men. The question of whether those women should be in prison or not is one which, in my view, can be just as aptly applied to a lot of non-violent offenders in general, irrespective of sex.

*Yes, I’m aware that there are male victims of domestic abuse, but we’re talking about women in prison here, so talking about male victims / female perpetrators of domestic abuse would be something of a non sequiteur.

The distaff side (I won’t say ‘the gentle sex’, for obvious reasons) arecatching up fast on the violent side, though…

2macSeptember 19, 2011 at 12:30

The vast majority of women in jail are no threat to society, nor have they committed crimes that have any violence attached. The last report I read was on Scottish prisons and the majority were for shop lifting, drug possession and prostitution related offenses. The were also likely to be poor and single mothers.

It would seem they represent the weakest element of society, stuck in abusive relationships, prostituting and stealing to feed habits and kids.

A more proactive drug programme offering assistance, accommadation, treatment & education would equip them for a society that prays on their situation.

Free heroin programs or sucking off bankers in the car park to buy smack. I suspect a heroin management program would be cheaper and popular.

Very easily annoyed at the moment, and remarkably short of patience with people who have nothing better to worry about in their life than penning insults on blogs.

SaulSeptember 19, 2011 at 12:22

Just thought I would make a considered and constructive comment on this subject.

Women in Gaol…..Phwoaaar!!

Thaddeus J. WilsonSeptember 19, 2011 at 12:28

Thank you, Saul! I was beginning to despair that a relevant and intelligent comment would ever be made!

Oh…

gladiolysSeptember 19, 2011 at 12:53

Well, I’ll always believed “Prisoner Cell Block H” was a documentary…

JamesSeptember 19, 2011 at 12:14

I don’t believe that anybody attacked the schools that were doing a good job. The IQ score is merely a guide to how the very brightest might get half a chance. There are programmes in place to pick up the ultra intelligent. If selected they are given special attention and tutoring. Teachers are assigned to pick out and identify the gifted and talented but, by and large, it is a waste of time. Also the vast majority are ignored.

I nearly beggared myself to send my children to Public School, so it isn’t all about being Rich.

I also once nearly went to prison but I had PMT at the time so they let me off.I don’t know what one could make of that.

JamesSeptember 19, 2011 at 11:27

No outrage at all about trying to raise standards but it’s an uphill battle. I cannot understand the reluctance of people to admit the obvious. That is, that some of us are advantaged. I was at the extreme receiving end of advantage, most fall in the middle. Those I taught were at the bottom. I tried, but the die was already cast. I could recognise a few who should be achieving but they were beyond help. It is really quite scandalous and I really can’t be arsed to enter into a discussion where some disingenuous person asserts that you only have to turn up. The quality of teaching can be quite dire (not to down play the good ones) and these young people have had a very shaky start. To put it into a quantifiable statement I would say that an IQ of 137 is required to break out and get help. Few qualify.

EngineerSeptember 19, 2011 at 11:46

I’m trying to point out that the best way to address the problem of educational disparity is to raise the standards and expectations of the poorest schools, not attack ones that are doing a good job. The good ones are part of the solution, not part of the problem – they set the standards for others to aim at. Dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator won’t help the common good one bit.

Some people are academically not as gifted as others. Some people are crap at sports, some people can’t saw straight to save their lives. That’s just human nature. What’s stopping us from giving them an education that tries to nurture the talents they do have, not try to make them all university material. We seem to have grown a state educational establishment that insists on a ‘one size fits all’ approach. It’s doomed to fail – and the statistics prove that it’s failing.

Attacking good schools on the grounds of some twisted class envy just seems utterly pointless to me. If they’re doing a good job, leave them alone. Raise the standards of the worst ones, or shut them down and start again with a new Head and outlook. Just bashing toffs won’t help the sink estate kids one bit. Improving their bog standard comp might, though.

Some of us do. But it’s a lot harder – you are right about that. And *that* is what is wrong – not that some people educate their children privately. Shut up about their “advantage” and address the scandal of crap education visited upon less fortunate families. Otherwise you are simply an advocate for crappiness and, as such, well worthy of Obo’s contempt.

My late wife and I went to a lousy comp. My wife taught in several more of them before deciding that being sworn at and threatened for a living while craven ‘leadership teams’ stood by wringing their useless hands was a waste of her talents. In consequence, we decided not to have children unless we could educate them outside the state system. Our greatest achievement is that our daughters spent not one second in the hands of state ‘educators.’

I feel sick though, that kids like my wife and I once were are struggling in crappy state schools with little chance of success. The sheer waste of talent is a scandal and economically-insane. And it’s all due to people like you who bitch and moan about those lucky enough to get good education, rather than addressing the problem.

Women in prison for doing lesser crimes is not a good look. Also, it demolishes the myth that women get off easy. And I suspect that you have been anti-feminist in your previous rants. (on your own sweary blog).

Anna Raccoon seems to lend this blog out to anybody these days. I don’t really think she has any principles, just an ego, which is so true of a lot of you.

I once read a comment from her on a blog where they were arguing about education and the advantage that the rich, privileged children have, which she closed down because she said she was the product of a children’s home. She left the impression that she was the product of a sink comprehensive, but she made it despite the odds.

Educationally she was privileged and she must have known that when she wrote that rebuke to a very reasonable man.

Ms Raccoon had precisely five years in full time education – at a damn good school, and I have never stopped singing its praises since. If that is privileged in comparison to the normal 11 years in school then I’m an uneducated Dutchman.Ms Raccoon lends this blog out to anyone at the moment because she is in hospital and thus rather bereft of ideas regarding politics. Nothing to do with ego whatsoever – just unwilling to waste the readership this blog enjoys on silence – I’d prefer to let others see what they can do with the platform.Since you don’t believe a word she says – why are you wasting your time on this blog?Then again, since you are so mouthy, why don’t you have a go at writing something whilst I am indisposed.Oh, you just did, and what a waste of space it was.

They certainly are!And one of my readers has just taken the nasty taste left by James right out of my mouth by ringing to check she has the right address, she is sending me an Ipad as a present. There’s generous and there’s generous, and I am totally overwhelmed by that gesture.I have some fantastic readers, and some fantastic fellow authors; I am humbled.